Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011739651 = product of:
  0.041088775 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3592, 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=3592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Compares and evaluates the indexes to the 1978 and 1988 editions of AACR2. The format of the index follows the recommendations of the major standards, but the indexer's use of chain index structure and omission of concrete topics create difficulties for cataloguers. Explains and illustrates the structure and gives examples of missing entries and cross-changes to the index with the goal of their adoption in the next edition of AACR.

Date

14. 1.1996 5:56:22

0.005275664 = product of:
  0.036929645 = sum of:
    0.036929645 = product of:
      0.07385929 = sum of:
        0.07385929 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07385929 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.2-13

0.005275664 = product of:
  0.036929645 = sum of:
    0.036929645 = product of:
      0.07385929 = sum of:
        0.07385929 = weight(_text_:22 in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07385929 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.178-180

0.005275664 = product of:
  0.036929645 = sum of:
    0.036929645 = product of:
      0.07385929 = sum of:
        0.07385929 = weight(_text_:22 in 4180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07385929 = score(doc=4180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

17.10.2005 13:54:22

0.00426338 = product of:
  0.029843658 = sum of:
    0.029843658 = product of:
      0.059687316 = sum of:
        0.059687316 = weight(_text_:22 in 6940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059687316 = score(doc=6940,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 6940, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

8. 3.1997 20:22:25

Source

Indexer. 20(1996) no.1, S.18-22

0.004037807 = product of:
  0.02826465 = sum of:
    0.02826465 = weight(_text_:with in 1942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02826465 = score(doc=1942,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.30122137 = fieldWeight in 1942, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1942)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Postcoordination, in which terms are combined at the searching stage rather than at the time of indexing, has been the main form of database access since the 1950s. Reasons for the failure of postcoordinate searches include the absence of specified relationships between terms, the complexity of formulating Boolean searches, and the high frequency of terms in large databases. Recent writers on indexing electronic text have called for precoordination to enhance the precision of retrieval. Among precoordinate indexing structures, a book index with coined modifications is the most precise. The time and cost associated with such customized analysis will, however, limit its application in the electronic environment

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=703,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It is a truism in information science that indexing is associated with 'aboutness', and that index terms that accurately represent what a document is about will serve the needs of the user/searcher well. It is contended in this paper that indexing which is limited to the representation of aboutness serves the novice in a discipline adequately, but does not serve the scholar or researcher, who is concerned with highly specific aspects of or points-of-view on a subject. The linguistic analogs of 'aboutness' and 'aspects' are 'topic' and 'comment' respectively. Serial indexing services deal with topics at varyng levels of specificity, but neglect comment almost entirely. This may explain the underutilization of secondary information services by scholars, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in user studies. It may also account for the incomplete lists of bibliographic references in many research papers. Natural language searching of fulltext databases does not solve this problem, because the aspect of a topic of interest to researchers is often inexpressible in concrete terms. The thesis is illustrated with examples of indexing failures in research projects the author has conducted on a range of linguistic and library-information science topics. Finally, the question of whether indexing can be improved to meet the needs of researchers is examined

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=1454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 6119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=6119,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 6119, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6119)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The past 100 years have seen the development of numerous systems for the structured representation of knowledge and information, including hierarchical classification systems and with sophisticated features for the representation of term relationships. Discusses reasons for the lack of widespread adoption of these systems, particularly in the USA. The suggested structure for indexing the Internet or other large electronic collections of documents is based on that of book indexes: specific headings with coined modifications

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 5538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=5538,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 5538, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5538)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Thesauri-structured controlled vocabularies, designed for information retrieval-are compared with classification schemes developed for the arrangement of library materials and/or bibliographic records. The syndetic structure (BTs and NTs) within the alphabetic sequence of thesauri constitutes a hidden classification, but many thesauri include an explicit hierarchical display; some feature notation. The various structures and applications of thesauri are surveyed, with an emphasis on their increasing role in electronic information retrieval. The skills required for thesaurus construction are similar to those for the development of classification schemes. The distinction between these activities is expected to blur in the future.

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 6162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=6162,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 6162, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6162)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The syndetic structure of subject headings lists, in particular the broader/narrower term references, constitutes a hidden classification that may be converted to an explicit tree structure. Such a structure may be used to examine the hierarchy of LC subject headings (LCSH) and to compare them with that of Library of Congress Classification (LCC). Joseph Galron's compilation, 'Library of Congress Subject Headings in Jewish Studies (1991)', was analyzed for several features relating to the hierarchy of terms, and trees tructures were built for the deepest hierarchies: Jews, Judaism, Hebrew language, and Israel. These were compared with the corresponding LC classes. A hierarchy in LCSH may have more levels than the corresponding schedule in LCC. It is concluded that the conversion of the BT / NT references of subject headings lists into tree structures is a useful tool for examining the correctness of a hierarchy. Display of subject headings in tree-structure format can assist users in grasping the hierarchy of subject headings and in navigating online catalogs

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The chapter on indexes in The Chicago Manual of Style serves as a standard for index format and as a self teaching tool for authors and novice indexers. Reviews the 14th ed. for logical sequence, accordance of the guidelines and rules with those of other manuals and authorities, and the quality of its index. It is found wanting in all these areas, but contains much useful information on the indexing process and book index format

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 7142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=7142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 7142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7142)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This book is a compilation of 20 book reviews. Here, Weinberg comments on her own reviews, and on the reactions of those who have been concerned with her reviews

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The history and theory of human textual indexing are surveyed. Basic terms are defined, the extent of the literature is discussed, and key concepts are explained, with an emphasis on thesaurus-based indexing. A section on the consistency of human indexing leads into a discussion of automatic indexing algorithms. An assessment of the future of human indexing concludes the entry. Pages from an early printed index and a manuscript index illustrate the structural elements of index entries as well as features of the format of early indexes that are still found in contemporary publications.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The invention of the citation index was credited to Shepard (1873) and Shapiro described a legal citation index published in 1743. A similar index was embedded in the Talmud 2 centuries earlier (1546). The 1st Hebrew citation index to a printed book is dated 1511. The earliest Hebrew manuscript citation index, ascribed to Maimonides, dates from the 12th century. Considerable knowledge was assumed for users of these tools. The substantial knowledge of their compilers contrats with the semi-automatic production of modern citation indexes. The terms citation, quotation, reference, cross-reference, locator, and concordance are employed inconsistently in publications about Hebrew indexes. There is a lack of citation links between the secondary literature on Hebrew indexes and that of citation analysis