Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017395675 = product of:
  0.05218702 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
    0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037908252 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

0.015176678 = product of:
  0.045530032 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1554,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1554, 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=1554)
    0.034820955 = weight(_text_:und in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034820955 = score(doc=1554,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Wenn man unter "Indexierung" den zweistufigen Prozeß (a) des Erkennens der Essenz eines wiederauffindbar zu machenden Textes und (b) des Wiedergebens dieser Essenz in einer ausreichend wiedergabetreuen und genügend gut voraussagbaren Form versteht, dann kann die Qualität der Indexierung gesteigert werden, wenn sie unter besonderer Beachtung der Begriffe aus einer kleinen Zahl von besonders wichtigen semantischen Kategorien erfolgt. Bei der Gestaltung der Indexierungssprache müssen die Begriffe aus diesen Kategorien in der erforderlichen Detailliertheit in den Wortschatz aufgenommen werden, und Präkombinationen, die zu "multikategorialen" Begroffen führen, sind möglichst weitgehend zu vermeiden. Präkombinationen, die ausschließlich durch Einbeziehung von häufig vorkommenden ("ubiquitätren") monokategorialen Begriffen gebildet werden, können und sollen aus pragmatischen Gründen für den Wortschatz zugelassen werden. Das Konzept des "Relationenweges" erklärt, inwiefern solche Präkombinationen für den Wortschatz nicht schädlich sind

Source

Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens

0.012300599 = product of:
  0.036901798 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 215, 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=215)
    0.026805183 = weight(_text_:und in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026805183 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: International classification 12(1985) S.106 (L. Kalok)

RSWK

Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)

Subject

Information und Dokumentation / Systemgrundlage (BVB)

0.012104477 = product of:
  0.03631343 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=280,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 280, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=280)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 280, 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=280)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Enthält in gut verständlicher Form u.a. eine Darstellung der Konzepte 'Vorhersagbarkeit' und 'Wiedergabetreue' von Elementen einer Indexierungssprache

Source

Anwendungen in der Klassifikation. I. Proc. 8. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Hofgeismar, 10.-13.4.1984. Hrsg.: R.G. Henzler

0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=257)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0025762038 = product of:
  0.015457222 = sum of:
    0.015457222 = weight(_text_:in in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015457222 = score(doc=1634,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Subject indexing: principles and practices in the 90's. Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting Held in Lisbon, Portugal, 17-18 August 1993, and sponsored by the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing and the Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro, Lisbon, Portugal. Ed.: R.P. Holley et al

0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=1412,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Natural text phrasing is an indeterminate process and, thus, inherently lacks representational predictability. This holds true in particular in the Gase of general concepts and of their syntactical connectivity. Hence, natural language query phrasing and searching is an unending adventure of trial and error and, in most Gases, has an unsatisfactory outcome with respect to the recall and precision ratlos of the responses. Human indexing is based an knowledgeable document interpretation and aims - among other things - at introducing predictability into the representation of documents. Due to the indeterminacy of natural language text phrasing and image construction, any adequate indexing is also indeterminate in nature and therefore inherently defies any satisfactory algorithmization. But human indexing suffers from a different Set of deficiencies which are absent in the processing of non-interpreted natural language. An optimally effective information System combines both types of language in such a manner that their specific strengths are preserved and their weaknesses are avoided. lf the goal is a large and enduring information system for more than merely known-item searches, the expenditure for an advanced index language and its knowledgeable and careful employment is unavoidable.

Footnote

Vgl. dazu auch den Nachtrag den Verfassers unter 'Letter and errata' in KO 30(2003) no.1, S.38-39

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=4781,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4781, 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=4781)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Contemporary research in information science has concentrated on the development of methods for the algorithmic processing of natural language texts. Often, the equivalence of this approach to the intellectual technique of content analysis and indexing is claimed. It is, however, disregarded that contemporary intellectual techniques are far from exploiting their full capabilities. This is largely due to the omission of vocabulary categorisation. It is demonstrated how categorisation can drastically improve the quality of indexing and classification, and, hence, of retrieval

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.1

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=3641,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.

Footnote

Original in: International classification 9(1982) no.3, S.140-144.