Search (3049 results, page 1 of 153)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Hotho, A.; Bloehdorn, S.: Data Mining 2004 : Text classification by boosting weak learners based on terms and concepts (2004) 0.16 
    0.15612929 = product of:
  0.31225857 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.04550976 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04550976 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19604386 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.
    Date
    8. 1.2013 10:22:32
  2. Dobreski, B.; Snow, K.; Moulaison-Sandy, H.: On overlap and otherness : a comparison of three vocabularies' approaches to LGBTQ+ identity (2022) 0.11 
    0.10619924 = product of:
  0.42479697 = sum of:
    0.42479697 = weight(_text_:lcsh's in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.42479697 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5545214 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.7660606 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic records can include information from controlled vocabularies to capture identities about individuals, especially about authors or intended audiences; personal name authority records can also contain information about identity. Employing a systematic analysis of the overlap of the Homosaurus, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT), this article explores the extent to which LGBTQ+ identities are represented in the three vocabularies. Despite LCSH's long, iterative history of development and the faceted, post-coordinate nature of LCDGT, neither vocabulary was found to be adequate in covering the complex, LGBTQ+ identities represented in the Homosaurus.
  3. Dean, R.J.: FAST: development of simplified headings for metadata (2004) 0.09 
    0.09102792 = product of:
  0.3641117 = sum of:
    0.3641117 = weight(_text_:lcsh's in 5682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3641117 = score(doc=5682,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5545214 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.65662336 = fieldWeight in 5682, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5682)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.
  4. Schrodt, R.: Tiefen und Untiefen im wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch (2008) 0.09 
    0.08891627 = product of:
  0.3556651 = sum of:
    0.3556651 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3556651 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.
  5. Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978) 0.09 
    0.08891627 = product of:
  0.3556651 = sum of:
    0.3556651 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3556651 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
  6. Vetere, G.; Lenzerini, M.: Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures (2005) 0.08 
    0.07780174 = product of:
  0.31120697 = sum of:
    0.31120697 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31120697 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.
  7. O'Neill, E.T.; Childress, E.; Dean, R.; Kammerer, K.; Vizine-Goetz, D.; Chan, L.M.; El-Hoshy, L.: FAST: faceted application of subject terminology (2003) 0.08 
    0.0758566 = product of:
  0.3034264 = sum of:
    0.3034264 = weight(_text_:lcsh's in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3034264 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5545214 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.54718614 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is by far the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains upward compatibility with LCSH, and any valid set of LC subject headings can be converted to FAST headings.
  8. Wiesenmüller, H.: LCSH goes RSWK? : Überlegungen zur Diskussion um die "Library of Congress subject headings" (2009) 0.08 
    0.0758566 = product of:
  0.3034264 = sum of:
    0.3034264 = weight(_text_:lcsh's in 3039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3034264 = score(doc=3039,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5545214 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.54718614 = fieldWeight in 3039, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3039)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Im Jahr 1898 begann die Library of Congress mit der Arbeit an einem Schlagwortkatalog - die Geburtsstunde der 'Library of Congress subject headings' (LCSH). Heute stellen die LCSH das zentrale Werkzeug zur verbalen inhaltlichen Erschließung in der gesamten angloamerikanischen Welt dar. Auch die Kritik an diesem Erschließungssystem hat eine lange Geschichte: Sie lässt sich bis in die Mitte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts zurückverfolgen und betraf im Lauf der Zeit recht unterschiedliche Aspekte. Neu an der Debatte der letzten Jahre ist, dass die Struktur der LCSH ganz grundsätzlich in Frage gestellt wird. Eine Projektgruppe der Bibliothek der University of California etwa urteilte 2005: "LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control." In einer für die Library of Congress erstellten Expertise mit dem Titel 'On the record' von 2008 heißt es: "LCSH suffers (...) from a structure that is cumbersome from both administrative and automation points of view". Es wird empfohlen, die LCSH in ein flexibleres Werkzeug zu verwandeln: "Transform LCSH into a tool that provides a more flexible means to create and modify subject authority data." Dies beinhaltet zum einen ein "de-coupling of subject strings", also eine 'Entkoppelung' der fest zusammengefügten (präkombinierten) Eintragungen, und zum anderen die Möglichkeit, das LCSH-Vokabular für "faceted browsing and discovery" nutzbar zu machen . Besonders drastische Worte wurden 2006 im sogenannten 'Calhoun Report' gefunden - einem Papier, das mit seinen radikalen Thesen in der amerikanischen Bibliothekswelt viel Aufsehen erregte: Man müsse die Library of Congress dazu bringen, die LCSH zu 'zerschlagen' ("urge LC to dismantle LCSH") - ja, sie gar zu 'eliminieren' ("eliminate LCSH").
  9. Mas, S.; Marleau, Y.: Proposition of a faceted classification model to support corporate information organization and digital records management (2009) 0.07 
    0.066687204 = product of:
  0.26674882 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4755313%2F4755314%2F04755480.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4755480&authDecision=-203.
  10. Li, L.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, W.: Improvement of HITS-based algorithms on Web documents 0.07 
    0.066687204 = product of:
  0.26674882 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.
  11. Zeng, Q.; Yu, M.; Yu, W.; Xiong, J.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, M.: Faceted hierarchy : a new graph type to organize scientific concepts and a construction method (2019) 0.07 
    0.066687204 = product of:
  0.26674882 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.
  12. Suchenwirth, L.: Sacherschliessung in Zeiten von Corona : neue Herausforderungen und Chancen (2019) 0.07 
    0.066687204 = product of:
  0.26674882 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.
  13. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.07 
    0.066687204 = product of:
  0.26674882 = sum of:
    0.26674882 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26674882 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  14. Rolland-Thomas, P.: Thesaural codes : an appraisal of their use in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (1993) 0.06 
    0.06068528 = product of:
  0.24274112 = sum of:
    0.24274112 = weight(_text_:lcsh's in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24274112 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5545214 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.4377489 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.
  15. Donsbach, W.: Wahrheit in den Medien : über den Sinn eines methodischen Objektivitätsbegriffes (2001) 0.06 
    0.05557267 = product of:
  0.22229068 = sum of:
    0.22229068 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22229068 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]
  16. Malsburg, C. von der: ¬The correlation theory of brain function (1981) 0.06 
    0.05557267 = product of:
  0.22229068 = sum of:
    0.22229068 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22229068 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_
  17. Ackermann, E.: Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism : what's the difference? (2001) 0.06 
    0.05557267 = product of:
  0.22229068 = sum of:
    0.22229068 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22229068 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.
  18. Zerbst, H.-J.; Kaptein, O.: Gegenwärtiger Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Sacherschließung : Auswertung einer Umfrage an deutschen wissenschaftlichen und Öffentlichen Bibliotheken (1993) 0.04 
    0.044458136 = product of:
  0.17783254 = sum of:
    0.17783254 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17783254 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47462678 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???
  19. Jascó, P.: Searching for images by similarity online (1998) 0.04 
    0.042907014 = product of:
  0.17162806 = sum of:
    0.17162806 = weight(_text_:22 in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17162806 = score(doc=393,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19604386 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29.11.2004 13:03:22
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.99-102
  20. Rübesame, O.: Probleme des geographischen Schlüssels (1963) 0.04 
    0.042907014 = product of:
  0.17162806 = sum of:
    0.17162806 = weight(_text_:22 in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17162806 = score(doc=134,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19604386 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055983268 = queryNorm
        0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17. 1.1999 13:22:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • el 71
  • b 34
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes