Search (137 results, page 1 of 7)

0.019957611 = product of:
  0.06985164 = sum of:
    0.059858575 = weight(_text_:interactions in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059858575 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.26064816 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.009993061 = weight(_text_:with in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009993061 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.10649783 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library Project announces the online publication of two protocols to support querying and response interactions using distributed services: one for gazetteers and one for thesauri. These protocols have been developed for our own purposes and also to support the general interoperability of gazetteers and thesauri on the web. See <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/gazetteer/> and <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~gjanee/thesaurus/>. For the gazetteer protocol, we have provided a page of test forms that can be used to experiment with the operational functions of the protocol in accessing two gazetteers: the ADL Gazetteer and the ESRI Gazetteer (ESRI has participated in the development of the gazetteer protocol). We are in the process of developing a thesaurus server and a simple client to demonstrate the use of the thesaurus protocol. We are soliciting comments on both protocols. Please remember that we are seeking protocols that are essentially "simple" and easy to implement and that support basic operations - they should not duplicate all of the functions of specialized gazetteer and thesaurus interfaces. We continue to discuss ways of handling various issues and to further develop the protocols. For the thesaurus protocol, outstanding issues include the treatment of multilingual thesauri and the degree to which the language attribute should be supported; whether the Scope Note element should be changed to a repeatable Note element; the best way to handle the hierarchical report for multi-hierarchies where portions of the hierarchy are repeated; and whether support for searching by term identifiers is redundant and unnecessary given that the terms themselves are unique within a thesaurus. For the gazetteer protocol, we continue to work on validation of query and report XML documents and on implementing the part of the protocol designed to support the submission of new entries to a gazetteer. We would like to encourage open discussion of these protocols through the NKOS discussion list (see the NKOS webpage at <http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/>) and the CGGR-L discussion list that focuses on gazetteer development (see ADL Gazetteer Development page at <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer>).

0.011739651 = product of:
  0.041088775 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3173, 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=3173)
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 3173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=3173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3173, 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=3173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes the backgroud to the construction of a thesaurus at Hydro-Quebec, Quebec, Canada. Several information units, linked to form a network, share the same bibliographic database. The need for coherence and efficiency was the principle motive for the construction of the multidisciplinary thesaurus. Describes the construction process, discusses the specifity of the tool, its circulation, and considers its use on a partnership basis with other information services

Source

Argus. 26(1997) no.3, S.16-22

0.010578708 = product of:
  0.037025474 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=5005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 5005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=5005,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5005, 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=5005)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

After a period of experiment and evolution in the 1950s and 1960s, a fairly standard format for thesauri was established with the publication of the influential Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) in 1967. This and other early thesauri relied primarily an the presentation of terms in alphabetical order. The value of a classified presentation was subsequently realised, and in particular the technique of facet analysis has profoundly influenced thesaurus evolution. Thesaurofacet and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus have acted as models for two distinct breeds of thesaurus using faceted displays of terms. As of the 1990s, the expansion of end-user access to vast networked resources is imposing further requirements an the style and structure of controlled vocabularies. The international standards for thesauri, first conceived in a print-based era, are badly in need of updating. Work is in hand in the UK and the USA to revise and develop standards in support of electronic thesauri.

Date

22. 9.2007 15:46:13

0.010578708 = product of:
  0.037025474 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The need for Persian thesauri became apparent during the late 1960s with the advent of documentation centres in Iran. The first Persian controlled vocabulary was published by IRANDOC in 1977. Other centres worked on translations of existing thesauri, but it was soon realised that these efforts did not meet the needs of the centres. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, the foundation of new centres intensified the need for Persian thesauri, especially in the fields of history and government documents. Also, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian research centres produced reports in scientific and technical fields, both to support military requirements and to meet society's needs. In order to provide a comprehensive thesaurus, the Council of Scientific Research of Iran approved a project for the compilation of such a work. Nowadays, 12 Persian thesauri are available and others are being prepared, based on the literary corpus and conformity with characteristics of Iranian culture.

Source

Indexer. 25(2006) no.1, S.19-22

0.010578708 = product of:
  0.037025474 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=1181,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

0.010272195 = product of:
  0.03595268 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The patterns of overlap between terms which are closely related in a thesaurus are considered. The relationships considered are parent/child, in which one term is a broader term of the other, and sibling in which to 2 terms share the same broader term. The patterns of overlap observed in the MeSH thesaurus with respect to selected MEDLINE postings are examined. The implications of the overlap patterns are discussed, in particular, the impact of the overlap patterns on the potential effectiveness of a proposed algorithm for handling negation is considered.

Date

25.12.1995 22:52:34

0.010272195 = product of:
  0.03595268 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.010272195 = product of:
  0.03595268 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

8.12.2007 19:25:22

0.009894882 = product of:
  0.06926417 = sum of:
    0.06926417 = product of:
      0.13852835 = sum of:
        0.13852835 = weight(_text_:humans in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13852835 = score(doc=2106,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26276368 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5271975 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The use of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) in aggregated metadata collections facilitates the implementation of search mechanisms operating on the same term or keyphrase space, thus preparing the ground for improved browsing, more accurate retrieval and better user profiling. Automatic thesaurus-based keyphrase extraction appears to be an inexpensive tool to obtain this information, but the studies on its effectiveness are scattered and do not consider the practical applicability of these techniques compared to the quality obtained by involving human experts. This paper presents an evaluation of keyphrase extraction using the KEA software and the AGROVOC vocabulary on a sample of a large collection of metadata in the field of agriculture from the AGRIS database. This effort includes a double evaluation, the classical automatic evaluation based on precision and recall measures, plus a blind evaluation aimed to contrast the quality of the keyphrases extracted against expert-provided samples and against the keyphrases originally recorded in the metadata. Results show not only that KEA outperforms humans in matching the original keyphrases, but also that the quality of the keyphrases extracted was similar to those provided by humans.

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4116, 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=4116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper describes a proposal for a new approach to thesaurus design and construction that could have significant implicantions for change in the way multilingual thesauri are handled and integrated with each other. The formula presented here has its origin in the work of the German Thesaurus Committee and has had input from a number of scientists and practitioners int he field. The emphasis is on the various types of relationships found among concepts, notiions and universals in languages. These relationships are analysed and refined beyond the approach taken in existing thesauri. This proposal is very much at the discussion stage and the author invites the assistance of interested readers through criticisms, discussion and dialogue. Applications of the proposed thesaurus are included and the major goal of this proposal is to provide the basis for improved desing and integration of multilingual thesauri

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.1, S.10-22

0.0076343627 = product of:
  0.026720269 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3644,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.009232411 = product of:
      0.018464822 = sum of:
        0.018464822 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018464822 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.005275664 = product of:
  0.036929645 = sum of:
    0.036929645 = product of:
      0.07385929 = sum of:
        0.07385929 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07385929 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.0049965307 = product of:
  0.034975715 = sum of:
    0.034975715 = weight(_text_:with in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034975715 = score(doc=138,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3727424 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the concept of descriptor equivalence, with its 2 subcomponents of dictionary equivalence and indexing equivalence, in the context of the compatibility of differnt thesauri used in bilingual indexing. In multilingual indexing and searching, the equivalence relationship between terms means either that all equal terms are descriptors or that only one of the terms is selected for the descriptor and users are directed with USE refrences to use it instead of the other potential terms. Discusses these issues with particular reference to the LUASPORT study: a study of the compatibility of the Finnish language sports thesaurus (LUAS) with the Canadian Sport Thesauri (SPORT) in terms of compatibility of subject descriptors. In LUASPORT, LUAS was the source thesaurus and SPORT was the target thesaurus

0.004521997 = product of:
  0.031653978 = sum of:
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.004521997 = product of:
  0.031653978 = sum of:
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004521997 = product of:
  0.031653978 = sum of:
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.004521997 = product of:
  0.031653978 = sum of:
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.0043710545 = product of:
  0.03059738 = sum of:
    0.03059738 = weight(_text_:with in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03059738 = score(doc=613,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3260817 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To evaluate the extent to which familiarity with search topics affects the ways in which users select and browse search terms in a thesaurus-enhanced search setting. Design/methodology/approach - An experimental methodology was adopted to study users' search behaviour in an operational information retrieval environment. Findings - Topic familiarity and subject knowledge influence some search and interaction behaviours. Searches involving moderately and very familiar topics were associated with browsing around twice as many thesaurus terms as was the case for unfamiliar topics. Research limitations/implications - Some search behaviours such as thesaurus browsing and term selection could be used as an indication of user levels of topic familiarity. Practical implications - The results of this study provide design implications as to how to develop personalized search interfaces where users with varying levels of familiarity with search topics can carry out searches. Originality/value - This paper establishes the importance of topic familiarity characteristics and the effects of those characteristics on users' interaction with search interfaces enhanced with semantic tools such as thesauri.

0.004327123 = product of:
  0.03028986 = sum of:
    0.03028986 = weight(_text_:with in 7330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03028986 = score(doc=7330,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.32280442 = fieldWeight in 7330, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7330)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines how far automation cluster analysis and association testing are relevant methods for smaller libraries in construction of search thesauri. Using WORDSTAR, a simple form of cluster analysis was tested, with satisfactory results in that the index terms formed clusters of a suitable size. The association test was used to elicit from users' natural language terms which can be used in the search thesaurus as entrance vocabulary. The test showed that users associated very differently in relation to the same stimuli words, with low overlap with terms used in the system's indexing. The results confirmed the need for better feedback. Concludes that while neither method can be used alone, a search thesauri which combine terms from the indexes and from users can be a powerful tool

0.004327123 = product of:
  0.03028986 = sum of:
    0.03028986 = weight(_text_:with in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03028986 = score(doc=4030,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.32280442 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes a design for ideal online subject and author thesauri. The subject thesaurus is a graphic thesaurus with a semantic network, so the spread activation assumption can be applied. The hierarchical relationship is broken into 3 specific relations, so automated inheritance can be performed. The associated relationship is separated with several specific relationships, so spatial recognition can function well. This thesaurus will provide variety and complexity to deal with uncertainty and will be a user constructed, user enhanced hyperthesaurus that serves as an analogue of the human mind. The author thesaurus is designed to show all authors which are alphabetically adjacent to a given author as well as other authors whose subject area is close to that of the given author