Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994) 0.03

0.03211999 = product of:
  0.06423998 = sum of:
    0.06423998 = sum of:
      0.014319601 = weight(_text_:a in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014319601 = score(doc=1427,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings
Type: a

Diodato, V.: Cross-references in back-of-book indexes (1991) 0.00

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 7765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=7765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 7765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type: a

Diodato, V.; Gandt, G.: Back of book indexes and the characteristics of author and nonauthor indexing : report of an exploratory study (1991) 0.00
```
0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1114,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

This study examined the content of back of book indexes produced by 37 authors and 27 nonauthors. The purpose was to see if differences between the two groups of indexers could be discerned by counting the occurrence of characteristics in their indexes. The nonauthors, many or all of whom were probably professional indexers, provided significantly more index pages, modified headings, and modifiers than did the author indexers. The two groups were almost identical in their frequency of cross reference use. The simple counting technique is a feasible method. It should be applied to othe populations of back of book indexes to determine how generalizable are the author/nonauthor differences seen here

Type

a
Diodato, V.: User preferences for features in back of the book indexes (1994) 0.00
```
0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 7762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=7762,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 7762, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

A survey of 255 librarians and college professors obtained their opinions of 3 elements of back of book indexes. Both groups overwhelmingly preferred line-by-line subheadings to the run-on arrangement, even though many books use the latter format. Almost all librarians preferred word-by-word alphabetization to the letter-by-letter method, but only about two thirds of the professors shared this preference. Strongest disagreement between the two groups occured when most of the librarians preferred see references to duplicate entries, while most professors selected duplicate entires instead of see references. Indexers and developers of indexing standards should consider the preferences of index users

Type

a