Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0010528166 = product of:
  0.0021056333 = sum of:
    0.0021056333 = product of:
      0.0042112665 = sum of:
        0.0042112665 = weight(_text_:s in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0042112665 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) nos.3/4, S.213-220

0.0010528166 = product of:
  0.0021056333 = sum of:
    0.0021056333 = product of:
      0.0042112665 = sum of:
        0.0042112665 = weight(_text_:s in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0042112665 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.115-122

0.0010420184 = product of:
  0.0020840368 = sum of:
    0.0020840368 = product of:
      0.0041680736 = sum of:
        0.0041680736 = weight(_text_:s in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041680736 = score(doc=2643,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.0832243 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Introduction Web search engines and digital libraries usually expect the users to use search terms that most accurately represent their information needs. Finding the most appropriate search terms to represent an information need is an age old problem in information retrieval. Keyword or phrase search may produce good search results as long as the search terms or phrase(s) match those used by the authors and have been chosen for indexing by the concerned information retrieval system. Since this does not always happen, a large number of false drops are produced by information retrieval systems. The retrieval results become worse in very large systems that deal with millions of records, such as the Web search engines and digital libraries. Vocabulary control tools are used to improve the performance of text retrieval systems. Thesauri, the most common type of vocabulary control tool used in information retrieval, appeared in the late fifties, designed for use with the emerging post-coordinate indexing systems of that time. They are used to exert terminology control in indexing, and to aid in searching by allowing the searcher to select appropriate search terms. A large volume of literature exists describing the design features, and experiments with the use, of thesauri in various types of information retrieval systems (see for example, Furnas et.al., 1987; Bates, 1986, 1998; Milstead, 1997, and Shiri et al., 2002).

Pages

S.133-138

9.0241426E-4 = product of:
  0.0018048285 = sum of:
    0.0018048285 = product of:
      0.003609657 = sum of:
        0.003609657 = weight(_text_:s in 2234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003609657 = score(doc=2234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) nos.3/4, S.163-186

6.381033E-4 = product of:
  0.0012762066 = sum of:
    0.0012762066 = product of:
      0.0025524131 = sum of:
        0.0025524131 = weight(_text_:s in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0025524131 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05008241 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046063907 = queryNorm
            0.050964262 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."

Source

D-Lib magazine. 9(2003) no.6, x S