Zakrzewska, E.D.: GOO of UDC? : twee systemen voor inhoudelijke ontsluiting vergeleken (1997)
0.01
0.011251582 = product of:
0.033754744 = sum of:
0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010096614 = score(doc=520,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=520,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 520, 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=520)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In the Netherlands the Gemeenschappelijke Onderwerps Ontsluiting (Standard Subject Indexing) schedules were developed for libraries using the national online catalogue. At Leiden University's Institute voor Oost-Europees Recht en Ruslandkunde use of both UDC and GOO schedules enabled a comparison to be made of the systems. A study of approx. 1.400 titles showed that GOO was more effective in retrieving relevant documents, whereas UDC was more suited for compiling subject bibliographies. The best of both schemes should be combined for optimal retrieval
- Source
- Informatie professional. 1(1997) no.3, S.19-22
