Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040037964 = sum of:
  0.017983811 = product of:
    0.071935244 = sum of:
      0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071935244 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022054153 = product of:
    0.044108305 = sum of:
      0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044108305 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities

0.015574437 = product of:
  0.031148873 = sum of:
    0.031148873 = product of:
      0.12459549 = sum of:
        0.12459549 = weight(_text_:authors in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12459549 = score(doc=2638,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

0.01414838 = product of:
  0.02829676 = sum of:
    0.02829676 = product of:
      0.05659352 = sum of:
        0.05659352 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05659352 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.012379832 = product of:
  0.024759663 = sum of:
    0.024759663 = product of:
      0.049519327 = sum of:
        0.049519327 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049519327 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.011989206 = product of:
  0.023978412 = sum of:
    0.023978412 = product of:
      0.09591365 = sum of:
        0.09591365 = weight(_text_:authors in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09591365 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2258)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study measures inter-indexer consistency as determined by the number of identical terms assigned to the same document by two different indexing organizations using the same thesaurus as a source for the entry vocabulary. The authors derive consistency figures of 24 percent and 45 percent for two samples. Factors in the consistency failures include variations in indexing depth, differences in choice of concepts for indexing, different indexing policies, and a highly specific indexing vocabulray. Results indicate that broad search strategies are often necessary for adequate search yields.