Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × author_ss:"Cochrane, P.A."
  1. LaBarre, K.; Cochrane, P.A.: Facet analysis as a knowledge management tool on the Internet (2006) 0.08
    0.07858993 = product of:
      0.15717986 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=1489,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
        0.09641537 = sum of:
          0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.024675604 = score(doc=1489,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.271686 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
          0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07173977 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.041294612 = queryNorm
              0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    In 2001, a group of information architects involved in designing websites, and knowledge management specialists involved in creating access to corporate knowledge bases appeared to have re-discovered facet analysis and faceted classification. These groups have been instrumental in creating new and different ways of handling digital content of the Internet. Some of these practitioners explicitly use the forms and language of facet analysis and faceted classification, while others seem to do so implicitly. Following a brief overview of the work and discussions on facets and faceted classification in recent years, we focus on our observations about new information resources which seem more in line with the Fourth law of Library Science ("Save the time of the reader") than most library OPACs today. These new developments on the Internet point to a partial grasp of a disciplined approach to subject access. This is where Ranganathan and Neelameghan's approach needs to be reviewed for the new audience of information system designers. A report on the work undertaken by us forms a principal part of this paper.
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  2. Cochrane, P.A.: Improving LCSH for use in online catalogs revisited : What progress has been made? What issues still remain? (2000) 0.04
    0.044025455 = product of:
      0.08805091 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=5609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5609, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5609)
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 5609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=5609,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 5609, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5609)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 5609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=5609,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5609, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5609)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 5609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=5609,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5609, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5609)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    Abstract
    In 1986 Libraries Unlimited published Cochrane's book, Improving LCSH for Use in Online Catalogs; Exercises for Self-Help with a Selection of Background Readings. This was preceded in 1981 by an ERIC publication (ED 208 900) by Cochrane, with Monika Kirtland Bibliographic and Bibliometric Essay which documented critical views of LCSH and an analysis of vocabulary control in LCSH (parts of which were published in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly' 1(2/3) (1982), 71-94). Three features of LCSH will be re-examined to check on progress since the time of these earlier publications: notes, structure of relationships between headings in the list, and links between Library of Congress classification numbers and LCSH or other vocabularies
    Source
    The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
  3. Owens, L.A.; Cochrane, P.A.: Thesaurus evaluation (2004) 0.01
    0.013660504 = product of:
      0.054642014 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=4856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4856)
        0.024696484 = weight(_text_:of in 4856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024696484 = score(doc=4856,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 4856, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4856)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The process of thesaurus evaluation can enhance the value of a thesaurus in terms of usability, scope, precision and recall. Structural, formative, observational and comparative evaluation techniques are explained along with specific examples of their use. These methods of evaluation can be applied in the assessment of an existing thesaurus or the construction of a new thesaurus. The history of thesauri since 1960, the development of national and international standards, and sources of evaluative literature are also discussed.