Search (549 results, page 1 of 28)

0.12113816 = product of:
  0.24227633 = sum of:
    0.24227633 = sum of:
      0.15595874 = weight(_text_:subject in 2869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15595874 = score(doc=2869,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.9582164 = fieldWeight in 2869, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2869)
      0.086317584 = weight(_text_:22 in 2869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086317584 = score(doc=2869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2869)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

RTSD newsletter. 6(1981), S.21-22

0.10077737 = product of:
  0.20155475 = sum of:
    0.20155475 = sum of:
      0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10290607 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
      0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09864867 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library herald. 22(1983), S.1-29

0.10077737 = product of:
  0.20155475 = sum of:
    0.20155475 = sum of:
      0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 4482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10290607 = score(doc=4482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 4482, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4482)
      0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 4482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09864867 = score(doc=4482,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4482, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4482)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Database. 8(1985) no.4, S.22-28

0.10077737 = product of:
  0.20155475 = sum of:
    0.20155475 = sum of:
      0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10290607 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
      0.09864867 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09864867 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.07951242 = product of:
  0.15902483 = sum of:
    0.15902483 = sum of:
      0.122031584 = weight(_text_:subject in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.122031584 = score(doc=468,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 468, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=468)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 468, 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=468)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A survey of subject specialisation in UK university libraries was made in Apr 81. Replies were received in the form of letters, from which quotations are made liberally. The evolution of subjetc specialisation is traced and views on the term 'subject specialist' dexcribed. Each library is classified in 1 of 5 categories: functional, dual, hybrid, 3 tier, subject divisional, according to the form of subject specialisation (if any) practised. The range of functions commonly performed on a subject basis is considered. Factors which influence the adoption and implementation of subject specialisation are discussed. These include relations with library users, work satisfaction and promotion prospects, the availability of suitably qualified staff and the relevance of subject qualifications, tensions between subject and functional activities, and the significance of automation and economic considerations. Most of the reservations expressed about subject specialisation were practical rather than ideological

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.076115206 = product of:
  0.15223041 = sum of:
    0.15223041 = sum of:
      0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10290607 = score(doc=217,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 217, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=217)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=217,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 217, 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=217)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2007 10:07:51

LCSH

Subject cataloging
Subject headings

Subject

Subject cataloging
Subject headings

0.061641313 = product of:
  0.123282626 = sum of:
    0.123282626 = sum of:
      0.086289376 = weight(_text_:subject in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086289376 = score(doc=324,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 324, 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=324)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In subject cataloging of audiovisual materials generic terms like 'documentary' or 'absolute film' facilitate the work of users and librarians. On the concrete level the study shows 4 ways to make a list of generic terms for the application in general libraries. The heuristic function of the study is to offer methods towards the solution of problems in the field of subject cataloguing of non-book materials. (1) The formal subject heading in library science corresponds to generic terms; Anglo-American and German rules for subject cataloging, however, provide no list that is directly applicable. (2) The terminology of institutions administering many audiovisual documents has been examined; general libraries have to find a common denominator with medium depth of classification and balanced representation of fiction and nonfiction terms. (3) From encyclopedic definitions of generic terms 8 dimensions have been extracted characterizing the terms in question individually. (4) The contribution of communication science has been discussed explaining a research project

Source

Inspel. 22(1988), S.121-145

0.061044957 = product of:
  0.122089915 = sum of:
    0.122089915 = sum of:
      0.07276558 = weight(_text_:subject in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07276558 = score(doc=365,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 365, 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=365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Eastern Europe is a complex area for which there are not adequate Library of Congress subject heading period subdivisions. This article offers additional period subdivisions, with justifications, for all the countries and some regions of Eastern Europe, excluding the Soviet Union. Covered are: Europe, Eastern; Czechoslovakia (and three regions); Germany (East); Hungary; Poland; Galicia; Balkan Peninsula; Albania; Bulgaria; Romania; and Yugoslavia (and six regions).

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:20

0.06056908 = product of:
  0.12113816 = sum of:
    0.12113816 = sum of:
      0.07797937 = weight(_text_:subject in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07797937 = score(doc=760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.06056908 = product of:
  0.12113816 = sum of:
    0.12113816 = sum of:
      0.07797937 = weight(_text_:subject in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07797937 = score(doc=363,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 363, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=363)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=363,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 363, 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=363)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the rules for descriptive cataloging have been recodified twice in the past twenty years, there never has been any kind of comprehensive theoretical code for subject headings, despite some suggestions for a code over the years. This essay explains the need for a code, provides historical background, and presents some broad proposals as to the philosophy, structure, and form of the code and what the code should cover. Included is the relation between the proposed code and the Library of Congress' 1984 Subject Cataloging Manual.

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:01

0.0570864 = product of:
  0.1141728 = sum of:
    0.1141728 = sum of:
      0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07717955 = score(doc=1637,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1637, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1637)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=1637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1637, 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=1637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The development of the general theory of subject indexing language and of POPSI for organisation, storage and retrieval of subjects embodies in documents has a striking parallel in the search for and development of 'universal forms' and 'deep structure' in language and linguistic studies. This paper briefly traces the development of POPSI language as a metalanguage for information organisation and for generating information retrieval thesaurus. Also a computer-based system for generating an information retrieval thesaurus from modulated subject headings formulated according to POPSI which are enriched with certain codes for relating the terms in the subject headings is described. It is also mentioned that, if it is possible to form a table of equivalent terms in another language for the terms already used to generate the thesaurus, then it is possible to translate the thesaurus automatically into the other language

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 8(1983), S.22-29

0.0570864 = product of:
  0.1141728 = sum of:
    0.1141728 = sum of:
      0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07717955 = score(doc=203,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=203,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 203, 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=203)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2007 12:07:51

LCSH

Subject cataloging / Germany (West)
Subject headings, German

Subject

Subject cataloging / Germany (West)
Subject headings, German

0.053414337 = product of:
  0.106828675 = sum of:
    0.106828675 = sum of:
      0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06366988 = score(doc=2509,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Edited version of a report to the Australian Library and Information Association on the Conference on classification theory in the computer age, Albany, New York, 18-19 Nov 88, and on the meeting of the Dewey Editorial Policy Committee which preceded it. The focus of the Editorial Policy Committee Meeting lay in the following areas: browsing; potential for improved subject access; system design; potential conflict between shelf location and information retrieval; and users. At the Conference on classification theory in the computer age the following papers were presented: Applications of artificial intelligence to bibliographic classification, by Irene Travis; Automation and classification, By Elaine Svenonious; Subject classification and language processing for retrieval in large data bases, by Diana Scott; Implications for information processing, by Carol Mandel; and implications for information science education, by Richard Halsey.

Date

8.11.1995 11:52:22

0.05300828 = product of:
  0.10601656 = sum of:
    0.10601656 = sum of:
      0.081354395 = weight(_text_:subject in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.081354395 = score(doc=3624,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4998445 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.024662167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024662167 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.050388686 = product of:
  0.10077737 = sum of:
    0.10077737 = sum of:
      0.051453035 = weight(_text_:subject in 2855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051453035 = score(doc=2855,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 2855, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2855)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 2855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=2855,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2855, 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=2855)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The university libraries at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University began an innovative indexing method in 1985 with the objectives of stronger and easier subject access to local newspapers and the creation of an index which could store information compactly and economically. Discusses the decision to use Pro-Cite software and describes the creation of 10 area data base files. Outlines 2 areas of difficulty: documentation and terminology.

Date

30.11.1995 17:22:01

0.04547849 = product of:
  0.09095698 = sum of:
    0.09095698 = product of:
      0.18191396 = sum of:
        0.18191396 = weight(_text_:subject in 1288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18191396 = score(doc=1288,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            1.1176863 = fieldWeight in 1288, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 3553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=3553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3553, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3553)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=3553,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3553, 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=3553)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The classification work of 26 librarians and 9 students was studied by a thinking aloud method. The structure of their work was analysed into 2 parts that corresond with the stages presented in the ISO standard 5963. Documents were analysed by different concepts of "aboutness". Identification of the principal concepts present in the subject has led into a hypothesis about 3 conceptual systems. Expressing the concepts in terms of classification systems was found to be difficult with UDC because of many unclear synonyms in different parts of the schedules.

Date

25.12.1995 22:12:09

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.038989685 = product of:
  0.07797937 = sum of:
    0.07797937 = product of:
      0.15595874 = sum of:
        0.15595874 = weight(_text_:subject in 7602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15595874 = score(doc=7602,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.9582164 = fieldWeight in 7602, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Enthält Geschichte der Library of Congress Subject Headings und Sears' list

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

0.038589776 = product of:
  0.07717955 = sum of:
    0.07717955 = product of:
      0.1543591 = sum of:
        0.1543591 = weight(_text_:subject in 1062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1543591 = score(doc=1062,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.9483882 = fieldWeight in 1062, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1062)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Introduction to subject indexing. - Subject analysis. - Elements of practical classification. - Universal Decimal Classification [UDC]. -Classified catalogue. - Alphabetical subject catalogue. - Post-coordinate indexing