Search (29841 results, page 2 of 1493)

0.08116855 = product of:
  0.1623371 = sum of:
    0.1623371 = sum of:
      0.023406891 = weight(_text_:e in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023406891 = score(doc=2798,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.31761688 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
      0.1389302 = weight(_text_:22 in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1389302 = score(doc=2798,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 13(1988), S.19-22

0.08116855 = product of:
  0.1623371 = sum of:
    0.1623371 = sum of:
      0.023406891 = weight(_text_:e in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023406891 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.31761688 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
      0.1389302 = weight(_text_:22 in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1389302 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

Source

Serials librarian. 22(1992), nos.3/4

0.08116855 = product of:
  0.1623371 = sum of:
    0.1623371 = sum of:
      0.023406891 = weight(_text_:e in 6143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023406891 = score(doc=6143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.31761688 = fieldWeight in 6143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6143)
      0.1389302 = weight(_text_:22 in 6143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1389302 = score(doc=6143,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 6143, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6143)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

Source

Computer. 16(1983) no.10, S.22-27

0.08116855 = product of:
  0.1623371 = sum of:
    0.1623371 = sum of:
      0.023406891 = weight(_text_:e in 6396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023406891 = score(doc=6396,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.31761688 = fieldWeight in 6396, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6396)
      0.1389302 = weight(_text_:22 in 6396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1389302 = score(doc=6396,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 6396, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6396)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e

Source

Serials. 5(1992) no.3, S.17-22

0.08010023 = sum of:
  0.0765892 = product of:
    0.3063568 = sum of:
      0.3063568 = weight(_text_:editors in 2121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.3063568 = score(doc=2121,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.8900637 = fieldWeight in 2121, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2121)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0035110335 = product of:
    0.007022067 = sum of:
      0.007022067 = weight(_text_:e in 2121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007022067 = score(doc=2121,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 2121, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2121)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Here, we develop a theory of the relationship between the reviewer's effort and bias in peer review. From this theory, it follows that journal editors might employ biased reviewers because they shirk less. This creates an incentive for the editor to use monitoring mechanisms (e.g., associate editors supervising the peer review process) that mitigate the resulting bias in the reviewers' recommendations. The supervision of associate editors could encourage journal editors to employ more extreme reviewers. This theory helps to explain the presence of bias in peer review. To mitigate shirking by a reviewer, the journal editor may assign biased referees to generate information about the manuscript's quality and subject the reviewer's recommendations to supervision by a more aligned associate editor.

Language

e

0.079212315 = product of:
  0.15842463 = sum of:
    0.15842463 = sum of:
      0.014044134 = weight(_text_:e in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014044134 = score(doc=1339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.19057012 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.1443805 = weight(_text_:22 in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1443805 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.804159 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2003 17:25:39
22. 2.2003 18:16:22

Language

e

0.07882945 = sum of:
  0.072208986 = product of:
    0.28883594 = sum of:
      0.28883594 = weight(_text_:editors in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28883594 = score(doc=7080,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.8391601 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0066204686 = product of:
    0.013240937 = sum of:
      0.013240937 = weight(_text_:e in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013240937 = score(doc=7080,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.17967124 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In spite of numerous studies of citation behaviour and the wide recognition by journal editors of the need to acknowledge intellectual debts, authors and referees need explicit reminders as to when formal refrences or acknowledgements are appropriate. Notes a 3 year experiment involving graduate students which demonstrated the varying perceptions of the need for documentation off terminology, ideas and methods. Suggests a tentative tutorial for journal editors that should be modified in each scholarly context

Language

e

0.07695935 = product of:
  0.1539187 = sum of:
    0.1539187 = sum of:
      0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016384823 = score(doc=935,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
      0.13753387 = weight(_text_:22 in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13753387 = score(doc=935,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2007 12:05:26
22. 7.2007 12:08:24

Language

e

0.07695935 = product of:
  0.1539187 = sum of:
    0.1539187 = sum of:
      0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 8727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016384823 = score(doc=8727,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 8727, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8727)
      0.13753387 = weight(_text_:22 in 8727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13753387 = score(doc=8727,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 8727, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8727)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2001 12:22:47

Language

e

Source

Information outlook. 3(1999) no.2, S.18-22

0.07695935 = product of:
  0.1539187 = sum of:
    0.1539187 = sum of:
      0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 4698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016384823 = score(doc=4698,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 4698, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4698)
      0.13753387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13753387 = score(doc=4698,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 4698, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4698)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Issue

Vol.22.

Language

e

Signature

78 BAHH 1089-22

0.07695935 = product of:
  0.1539187 = sum of:
    0.1539187 = sum of:
      0.016384823 = weight(_text_:e in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016384823 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.2223318 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.13753387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13753387 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:19:22

Language

e

0.076890364 = sum of:
  0.072208986 = product of:
    0.28883594 = sum of:
      0.28883594 = weight(_text_:editors in 8869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28883594 = score(doc=8869,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.8391601 = fieldWeight in 8869, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8869)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004681378 = product of:
    0.009362756 = sum of:
      0.009362756 = weight(_text_:e in 8869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009362756 = score(doc=8869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.12704675 = fieldWeight in 8869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8869)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The book consists of 14 contributions and an introduction by the editors. It concludes with a short subject index. The editors state that the book 'aims at the exploration of the methods and principles which comprise the subject field of terminology, the establishment of its characteristics and the investigation of its usefulness to, and interaction with, other subject fields ...' It is intended to continue with a new journal in 1994: 'Terminology: applications in interdisciplinary communication'

Language

e

0.076890364 = sum of:
  0.072208986 = product of:
    0.28883594 = sum of:
      0.28883594 = weight(_text_:editors in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28883594 = score(doc=3845,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.8391601 = fieldWeight in 3845, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3845)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.004681378 = product of:
    0.009362756 = sum of:
      0.009362756 = weight(_text_:e in 3845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009362756 = score(doc=3845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.12704675 = fieldWeight in 3845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3845)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers whether joint syntax (a single step linking object and procedure) or disjoint, 2 step, processes are best suited to particular tasks of text editing. Finds that specific procedures are not necessarily faster to use than general ones. users of joint editors consulted the help menu less often and for longer and experienced a greater workload than users of disjoint editors. The experiment shows that general text editing procedures obeying a disjoint systax minimize workload. Specific objects and joint syntax are advanced features that should be reserved for experienced users

Language

e

0.075495556 = sum of:
  0.071357764 = product of:
    0.28543106 = sum of:
      0.28543106 = weight(_text_:editors in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28543106 = score(doc=3467,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.82926786 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0041377926 = product of:
    0.008275585 = sum of:
      0.008275585 = weight(_text_:e in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008275585 = score(doc=3467,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.112294525 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikis are designed to support collaborative editing, without focusing on individual contribution, such that it is not straightforward to determine who contributed to a specific page. However, as wikis are increasingly adopted in settings such as business, government, and education, where editors are largely driven by career goals, there is a perceived need to modify wikis so that each editor's contributions are clearly presented. In this paper we introduce an approach for assessing the contributions of wiki editors along several authorship categories, as well as a variety of information glyphs for visualizing this information. We report on three types of analysis: (a) assessing the accuracy of the algorithms, (b) estimating the understandability of the visualizations, and (c) exploring wiki editors' perceptions regarding the extent to which such an approach is likely to change their behavior. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed automated techniques can estimate fairly accurately the quantity of editors' contributions across various authorship categories, and that the visualizations we introduced can clearly convey this information to users. Moreover, our user study suggests that such tools are likely to change wiki editors' behavior. We discuss both the potential benefits and risks associated with solutions for estimating and visualizing wiki contributions.

Language

e

0.075349115 = sum of:
  0.07125291 = product of:
    0.28501165 = sum of:
      0.28501165 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28501165 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4346759 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = 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)
  0.004096206 = product of:
    0.008192412 = sum of:
      0.008192412 = weight(_text_:e in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008192412 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.1111659 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Language

e

0.07249644 = sum of:
  0.031912163 = product of:
    0.12764865 = sum of:
      0.12764865 = weight(_text_:editors in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12764865 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.040584274 = sum of:
    0.005851723 = weight(_text_:e in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005851723 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051270977 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
    0.03473255 = weight(_text_:22 in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03473255 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051270977 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)

Abstract

Since ancient times intellectual work has required tools for writing, documents for reading, and bibliographies for finding, not to mention more specialized techniques and technologies. Direct personal discussion is often impractical and we depend on documents instead. Document technology evolved through writing, printing, telecommunications, copying, and computing and facilitated an 'information flood' which motivated important knowledge organization initiatives, especially in the nineteenth century (library science, bibliography, documentation). Electronics and the Internet amplified these trends. As an example we consider an initiative to provide shared access to the working notes of editors preparing scholarly editions of historically important texts. For the future, we can project trends leading to ubiquitous recording, pervasive representations, simultaneous interaction regardless of geography, and powerful analysis and visualization of the records resulting from that ubiquitous recording. This evolving situation has implications for publishing, archival practice, and knowledge organization. The passing of time is of special interest in knowledge organization because knowing is cultural, living, and always changing. Technique and technology are also cultural ("material culture") but fixed and inanimate, as can be seen in the obsolescence of subject headings, which remain inscribed while culture moves on. The tension between the benefits of technology and the limitations imposed by fixity in a changing world provide a central tension in knowledge organization over time.

Language

e

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.07249644 = sum of:
  0.031912163 = product of:
    0.12764865 = sum of:
      0.12764865 = weight(_text_:editors in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12764865 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.040584274 = sum of:
    0.005851723 = weight(_text_:e in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005851723 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051270977 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.03473255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03473255 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17954223 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051270977 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)

Abstract

The report from the IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) recommended a new approach to cataloging based on an entity-relationship model. This study examined a single work, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, to determine benefits and drawbacks associated with creating such an entity-relationship model. Humphry Clinker was selected for several reasons - it has been previously studied, it is widely held, and it is a work of mid-level complexity. In addition to analyzing the bibliographic records, many books were examined to ensure the accuracy of the resulting FRBR model. While it was possible to identify works and manifestations, identifying expressions was problematic. Reliable identification of expressions frequently necessitated the examination of the books themselves. Enhanced manifestation records where the roles of editors, illustrators, translators, and other contributors are explicitly identified may be a viable alternative to expressions. For Humphry Clinker, the enhanced record approach avoids the problem of identifying expressions while providing similar functionality. With the enhanced manifestation record, the three remaining entity-relationship structures - works, manifestations, and items - the FRBR model provides a powerful means to improve bibliographic organization and navigation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Language

e

0.069839224 = sum of:
  0.06632819 = product of:
    0.26531276 = sum of:
      0.26531276 = weight(_text_:editors in 6120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26531276 = score(doc=6120,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.77081776 = fieldWeight in 6120, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6120)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0035110335 = product of:
    0.007022067 = sum of:
      0.007022067 = weight(_text_:e in 6120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007022067 = score(doc=6120,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 6120, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6120)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.12, S.1709-1710 (Y. Awazu): "This hook presents a collection of research studies on the creation, use, and deployment of digital information. According to the editors, the goal of the book is "to present results of scientific research on (I) how digital information has to be designed, (2) how artifacts or systems containing digital content should maximize usability, and (3) how context can influence the nature and efficiency of digital communication" (p. 2). Contributors to this volume have a wide assortment of backgrounds in information science, classical studies, cognitive science, information systems, and organizational sciences. The editors did an excellent job in designing the book. Each chapter is unique in its theory and method. The editors successfully put these unique chapters into the life-cycle view of information: creation, use, and deployment. . . . I would highly recommend this book as a supplementary text for graduate classes in information science, especially those dealing with the design of information systems. It was a pleasure to read this book, and I believe that readers will certainly gain from the wealth of knowledge and insights contained in the volume."

Language

e

0.06967605 = sum of:
  0.063824326 = product of:
    0.2552973 = sum of:
      0.2552973 = weight(_text_:editors in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2552973 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.7417197 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005851723 = product of:
    0.011703446 = sum of:
      0.011703446 = weight(_text_:e in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011703446 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Selected papers presented by leading professionals at a mid-year conference of ASIS, along with additional commentary by guest editors comprise this volume, which condenses a broad range of information into a cohesive overview of the state of the art of interface design

Language

e

0.06967605 = sum of:
  0.063824326 = product of:
    0.2552973 = sum of:
      0.2552973 = weight(_text_:editors in 6983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2552973 = score(doc=6983,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34419647 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.7417197 = fieldWeight in 6983, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6983)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.005851723 = product of:
    0.011703446 = sum of:
      0.011703446 = weight(_text_:e in 6983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011703446 = score(doc=6983,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07369536 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051270977 = queryNorm
          0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 6983, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6983)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing terms supplied by authors can increase subject control of their documents. The terms can be used in the creation of indexes, abstracts, and other devices for information retrieval in the special library. An examination of the American Mathematical Society author indexing program suggests that contributions of authors enhance indexing efforts of editors

Language

e