-
Gretz, M.; Thomas, M.: Indexierungen in biomedizinischen Literaturdatenbanken : eine vergleichende Analyse (1991)
0.02
0.018251318 = product of:
0.05475395 = sum of:
0.017669076 = weight(_text_:in in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017669076 = score(doc=5104,freq=16.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
0.037084877 = weight(_text_:und in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037084877 = score(doc=5104,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Auf der Grundlage von vier Originaldokumenten, d.h. dokumentarischen Bezugseinheiten (DBEs), wird die Indexierung in vier biomedizinischen Online-Datenbanken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS PREVIEWS, SCISEARCH) analysiert. Anhand von Beispielen werden inahltliche Erschließung, Indexierungstiefe, Indexierungsbreite, Indexierungskonsistenz, Präzision (durch syntaktisches Indexieren, Gewichtung, Proximity Operatoren) und Wiederauffindbarkeit (Recall) der in den Datenbanken gespeicherten Dokumentationseinheien (DBEs) untersucht. Die zeitaufwendigere intellektuelle Indexierung bei MEDLINE und EMBASE erweist sich als wesentlich präziser als die schneller verfügbare maschinelle Zuteilung von Deskriptoren in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH. In Teil 1 der Untersuchung werden die Indexierungen in MEDLINE und EMBASE, in Teil 2 die Deskriptorenzuteilungen in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH verglichen
-
Ladewig, C.; Rieger, M.: Ähnlichkeitsmessung mit und ohne aspektische Indexierung (1998)
0.02
0.016507369 = product of:
0.049522102 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
0.042382717 = weight(_text_:und in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042382717 = score(doc=2526,freq=10.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.438048 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Für eine fiktive Dokumentmenge wird eine Dokument-Wort-Matrix erstellt und mittels zweier Suchanfragen, ebenfalls als Matrix dargestellt, die Retrievalergebnisse ermittelt. Den Wörtern der Dokumentmenge werden in einem zweiten Schritt Aspekte zugeordnet und die Untersuchung erneut durchgeführt. Ein Vergleich bestätigt die schon früher gefundenen Vorteile des aspektischen Indexierung gegenüber anderen Methoden der Retrievalverbesserung, wie Trunkierung und Controlled Terms
- Source
- nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.8, S.459-462
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.01
0.012007969 = product of:
0.036023907 = sum of:
0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012365777 = score(doc=7247,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.01
0.011556499 = product of:
0.034669496 = sum of:
0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013968632 = score(doc=230,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This study represents an attempt to compare indexing consistency between the catalogers of the National Library of Iran (NLI) on one side and 12 major academic and special libraries located in Tehran on the other. The research findings indicate that in 75% of the libraries the subject inconsistency values are 60% to 85%. In terms of subject classes, the consistency values are 10% to 35.2%, the mean of which is 22.5%. Moreover, the findings show that whenever the number of assigned terms increases, the probability of consistency decreases. This confirms Markey's findings in 1984.
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
-
Tinker, F.F.: Imprecision in meaning measured by inconsistency of indexing (1966-68)
0.01
0.010872297 = product of:
0.03261689 = sum of:
0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008924231 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02369266 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Content
- Ergebnisse: (1) Wenn SW frei gewählt, Recherche um so schwieriger, je mehr SW; (2) 'ältere' SW häufiger und weniger genau verwendet als 'jüngere'; (3) viele Wörter mit ungenauer Bedeutung
-
Chan, L.M.: Inter-indexer consistency in subject cataloging (1989)
0.01
0.010439968 = product of:
0.0313199 = sum of:
0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012365777 = score(doc=2276,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018954126 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The purpose of the current study has been twofold: (1) to develop a valid methodology for studying indexing consistency in MARC records and, (2) to study such consistency in subject cataloging practice between non-LC libraries and the Library of Congress
- Content
- Die Studie enthält Konsistenzzahlen bezogen auf die LCSH. Diese Zahlen sind kategorienbezogen und können teilweise auf die RSWK übertragen werden
-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.01
0.010286495 = product of:
0.030859483 = sum of:
0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013115887 = score(doc=3565,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.
- Date
- 18. 6.2005 13:16:22
-
Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000)
0.01
0.009005977 = product of:
0.027017929 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=2552,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.008982609 = product of:
0.026947826 = sum of:
0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006246961 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A known-item search for abstracts to previously retrieved references revealed that 2 documents from the same annual volume had been indexed twice. Working from the premise that the whole volume may have been double-indexed, a search strategy was devised that limited the journal code to the year in question. 57 references were retrieved, comprising 28 pairs of duplicates plus a citation for the whole volume. Author, title, source and descriptors were requested off-line and the citations were paired with their duplicates. The 4 categories of descriptors-major descriptors, minor descriptors, subheadings and check-tags-were compared for depth and consistency of indexing and lessons that might be learnt from the study are discussed.
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
Bellamy, L.M.; Bickham, L.: Thesaurus development for subject cataloging (1989)
0.01
0.00872957 = product of:
0.026188709 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=2262,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
-
Kedar, R.; Shoham, S.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of a thesaurus (2003)
0.01
0.00872957 = product of:
0.026188709 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=2700,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
-
Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996)
0.01
0.008308224 = product of:
0.024924671 = sum of:
0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010709076 = score(doc=4216,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.01
0.007903522 = product of:
0.023710564 = sum of:
0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008924231 = score(doc=5784,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014)
0.01
0.007504981 = product of:
0.022514943 = sum of:
0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007728611 = score(doc=1781,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.
-
Iivonen, M.; Kivimäki, K.: Common entities and missing properties : similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts (1998)
0.00
0.0030914443 = product of:
0.018548666 = sum of:
0.018548666 = weight(_text_:in in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018548666 = score(doc=3074,freq=24.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.3123684 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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
-
Braam, R.R.; Bruil, J.: Quality of indexing information : authors' views on indexing of their articles in chemical abstracts online CA-file (1992)
0.00
0.0029598325 = product of:
0.017758995 = sum of:
0.017758995 = weight(_text_:in in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017758995 = score(doc=2638,freq=22.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.29906997 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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
-
Peset, F.; Garzón-Farinós, F.; González, L.M.; García-Massó, X.; Ferrer-Sapena, A.; Toca-Herrera, J.L.; Sánchez-Pérez, E.A.: Survival analysis of author keywords : an application to the library and information sciences area (2020)
0.00
0.0025762038 = product of:
0.015457222 = sum of:
0.015457222 = weight(_text_:in in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015457222 = score(doc=5774,freq=24.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.260307 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Our purpose is to adapt a statistical method for the analysis of discrete numerical series to the keywords appearing in scientific articles of a given area. As an example, we apply our methodological approach to the study of the keywords in the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) area. Our objective is to detect the new author keywords that appear in a fixed knowledge area in the period of 1 year in order to quantify the probabilities of survival for 10 years as a function of the impact of the journals where they appeared. Many of the new keywords appearing in the LIS field are ephemeral. Actually, more than half are never used again. In general, the terms most commonly used in the LIS area come from other areas. The average survival time of these keywords is approximately 3 years, being slightly higher in the case of words that were published in journals classified in the second quartile of the area. We believe that measuring the appearance and disappearance of terms will allow understanding some relevant aspects of the evolution of a discipline, providing in this way a new bibliometric approach.
-
Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989)
0.00
0.0025503114 = product of:
0.015301868 = sum of:
0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015301868 = score(doc=2287,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
-
Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991)
0.00
0.0025503114 = product of:
0.015301868 = sum of:
0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015301868 = score(doc=2308,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ¬The Cranfield tests on index language devices (1967)
0.00
0.0025241538 = product of:
0.015144923 = sum of:
0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015144923 = score(doc=1957,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Footnote
- Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.47-58.
