Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

0.024099609 = product of:
  0.048199218 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=7238,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 7238, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7238)
    0.022419576 = product of:
      0.04483915 = sum of:
        0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04483915 = score(doc=7238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7238, 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=7238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Subject access in library OPACs might be improved for some users by taking advantage of all of the hierarchical relationships which are indicated on existing LCSH entries. Recommends that cross references pointing to broader terms be displayed, in addition to those for narrower and related terms to which users have traditionally benn directed. Traces the old practice back to Charles Cutter, reports on deliberations of the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee nearly 120 years later. Discusses practical concerns related to implementing the change, including the accuracy of hierarchical relationships in the LCSH system and possible techniques for using the MARC format to generate the cross references

Date

22. 4.1997 20:43:23

0.023227734 = product of:
  0.04645547 = sum of:
    0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020833097 = score(doc=3734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
    0.025622372 = product of:
      0.051244743 = sum of:
        0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051244743 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3734, 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=3734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Most indexed databases now include their thesauri and/or coding in their bibliographic files, searchable at the databases' online connect rates. Assesses the searchability of these on the different hosts. Thesauri and classifications are also available as diskette or CD-ROM products. Describes a number of these, highlighting the diskette thesaurus from IFI/Plenum Data for its flexible databases, the CLAIMS Uniterm and Comprehensive indexes to US chemical patents

Source

Searcher. 3(1995) no.8, S.18-22

0.020186728 = product of:
  0.040373456 = sum of:
    0.024359472 = weight(_text_:for in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024359472 = score(doc=2337,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27441877 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
    0.016013984 = product of:
      0.032027967 = sum of:
        0.032027967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032027967 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Despite early claims to the contemporary, thesauri continue to find use as access tools for information in the full-text environment. Their mode of use is changing, but this change actually represents an expansion rather than a contrdiction of their utility. Thesauri and similar vocabulary tools can complement full-text access by aiding users in focusing their searches, by supplementing the linguistic analysis of the text search engine, and even by serving as one of the tools used by the linguistic engine for its analysis. While human indexing contunues to be used for many databases, the trend is to increase the use of machine aids for this purpose. All machine-aided indexing (MAI) systems rely on thesauri as the basis for term selection. In the 21st century, the balance of effort between human and machine will change at both input and output, but thesauri will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.0191766 = product of:
  0.0383532 = sum of:
    0.019136423 = weight(_text_:for in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019136423 = score(doc=131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.21557912 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

After a fundamental examination of the phenomenon of time, this paper presents the history, authority, and structure of period subdivisions and chronological terms in the three subject heading languages LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), RAMEAU (Répertoire d'Autorité Matière Encyclopédique et Alphabétique Unifié), and RSWK (Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog). Their usefulness in online searching is demonstrated using the online catalogs of the Library of Congress, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the Deutsche Bibliothek and is compared to the search options in selected digital encyclopedias (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie). The author develops a model for common time retrieval across all three online catalogs, outlines the conditions for that model (time period code, chronological code, and chronology authority file), and proposes a search interface.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0174208 = product of:
  0.0348416 = sum of:
    0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015624823 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), a system originally designed as a tool for subject access to the Library's own collection in the late nineteenth century, has become, in the course of the last century, the main subject retrieval tool in library catalogs throughout the United States and in many other countries. It is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. As LCSH enters a new century, it faces an information environment that has undergone vast changes from what had prevailed when LCSH began, or, indeed, from its state in the early days of the online age. In order to continue its mission and to be useful in spheres outside library catalogs as well, LCSH must adapt to the multifarious environment. One possible approach is to adopt a series of scalable and flexible syntax and application rules to meet the needs of different user communities

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

0.0174208 = product of:
  0.0348416 = sum of:
    0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015624823 = score(doc=3837,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LSCH), which celebrated its 100th birthday in 1998, is the largest cataloging and indexing language in the world for the indication of the topics and formats of books and similar publications. It consists of a controlled list of main headings, many with subdivisions, with a rich system of cross references. It is supported by the U.S. government, and undergoes systematic revision. In recent decades its managers have begun to confront challenges such as biased terminology, complicated syntax (how terms are put together to form headings), and effective displays in electronic media. Many suggestions have been made for its improvement, including moving to a fully faceted system.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:13

0.007307842 = product of:
  0.029231368 = sum of:
    0.029231368 = weight(_text_:for in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029231368 = score(doc=1202,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.32930255 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 33(1982), S.32-37

0.0072056293 = product of:
  0.028822517 = sum of:
    0.028822517 = weight(_text_:for in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028822517 = score(doc=2640,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3246967 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For many years, searching medical and health-related topics has caused thousands of searchers to consult the well-known Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) controlled vocabulary. This plan works well for searching MEDLINE, but what about the MEDLARS databases such as TOXLIT, BIOETHICSLINE and POPLINE? Several printed vocabularies are available for searchers who wish to benefit from the consistency afforded by consulting established term lists. Occasionally, use of keywords from vocabularies other than MeSH is recommended even when information in the database is also indexed to MeSH. Search techniques available for use with several of the controlled vocabularies which are discussed vary, but built-in consistency of term use is a continuing theme from one controlled vocabulary to another

0.0067657465 = product of:
  0.027062986 = sum of:
    0.027062986 = weight(_text_:for in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027062986 = score(doc=2323,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3048749 = fieldWeight in 2323, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Partial coordination is a new method for cataloging documents for subject access. It is especially designed to enhance the precision of document searches in online environments. This article reports a preliminary evaluation of partial coordination that shows promising results compared with full-text retrieval. We also report the difficulties in empirically evaluating the effectiveness of automatic full-text retrieval in contrast to mixed methods such as partial coordination which combine human cataloging with computerized retrieval. Based on our study, we propose research in this area will substantially benefit from a common framework for failure analysis and a common data set. This will allow information retrieval researchers adapting 'library style'cataloging to large electronic document collections, as well as those developing automated or mixed methods, to directly compare their proposals for indexing and retrieval. This article concludes by suggesting guidelines for constructing such as testbed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.14, S.1270-1282

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986), S.357-367

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=1050,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SOMMERVILLE, I., M. WOOD: A software components catalogue; COELHO, H.: Library manager: a case study in knowledge engineering; DAVIES, R.: Cataloguing as a domain for an expert system; POLLITT, A.S.: A rule-base system as an intermediary for searching cancer therapy literature on MEDLINE; LEBOWITZ, M.: An experiment in intelligent information systems: RESEARCHER; VICKERY, A., H.M. BROOKS u. B.C. VICKERY: An expert system for referral: the PLEXUS project; RICH, E.: Users are individuals: individualizing user models; INGWERSEN, P.: Cognitive analysis and the role of the intermediary in information retrieval; SHAW, M.L.G. u. B.R. GAINES: A cognitive model for intelligent information systems; DAVIES, R.: Classification and ratiocination: a perennial quest

0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 1330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=1330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 1330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1330)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=5611,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing's Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Headings Languages has identified a set of eleven principles for subject heading languages and excerpted the texts that match each principle from the instructions for each of eleven national subject indexing systems, including excerpts from the LC's Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. This study compares the IFLA principles with other texts that express the principles underlying LCSH, especially Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application, prepared by Lois Mai Chan for the Library of Congress in 1990, Chan's later book on LCSH, and earlier documents by Haykin and Cutter. The principles are further elaborated for clarity and discussed

0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 5674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=5674,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 5674, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5674)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The project of the renewal of the Subject Headings for Italian Library Catalogues (Soggettario), financed by the National Central Library in Florence, proposes a pre-coordinated language, both analytic and synthetic, complying with international rules on vocabulary control and structure, based on category analysis of semantic relationships. It envisages a strict distinction between semantic relationships and syntactic ones, and bases its citation order of subject strings on the analysis model for logical relationships. Thanks to its features, the new Soggettario agrees both with the logic of Guidelines for Subject Authority and Reference Entries and of UNIMARC. Authorities, and with FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records). The rigorous structure of the thesaurus will facilitate the transfer of controlled terminology to lists or authority files and archives. The Italian National Bibliography (BNI) will have to play a leading role on the control of coherence of semantic access points. It will validate the strings created by other libraries and control their coherence according to the syntax rules envisaged in the new method.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Authority control: definition and international experience. Part II: Authority control for subjects"

0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 5682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=5682,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 5682, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5682)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Authority control: definition and international experience. Part II: Authority control for subjects"

0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=3431,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 3431, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3431)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the current information environment characterized by the proliferation of digital resources, including collaboratively created and shared resources, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is facing the challenges of effective and efficient subject-based organization and retrieval of digital resources. To explore the feasibility of utilizing LCSH in a digital environment, we might need to revisit its basic characteristics. The objectives of our study were to analyze LCSH in both syntactic and relational structures, to discover the structural characteristics of LCSH, and to identify problems and issues for the feasibility of LCSH as an effective subject access tool. This study reports and discusses issues raised by the syntactic and hierarchical structures of LCSH that present challenges to its use in a networked environment. Given the results of this study, we recommend a number of provisional future directions for the development of LCSH towards further becoming a viable system for digital and networked resources.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.677-687

0.005823028 = product of:
  0.023292111 = sum of:
    0.023292111 = weight(_text_:for in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023292111 = score(doc=4549,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.26239455 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper attempts to explain the wide dissemination of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) within digital libraries and presents some of the advantages and disadvantages of using this controlled vocabulary in digital collections. The paper also presents other classifications used in digital collections for subject access and explores ways of improving search functionality in digital collections that employ LCSH. Design/methodology/approach - Unlike traditional libraries that use Library of Congress Classification for organization and retrieval, digital libraries use metadata forms for organization and retrieval. The collections exist in cyberspace of the internet which is known for containing the universe of knowledge. The use of LCSH for information retrieval has been widely criticized for its difficulty of use and its information retrieval effectiveness in online environments. The Library of Congress (LOC) has claimed the headings were not based on comprehensive principles nor ever intended to cover the universe of knowledge. Despite these claims and criticisms, LCSH is the most popular choice for subject access in digital libraries. Findings - The number of digital collections increases every year and LCSH is still the most popular choice of controlled vocabulary for subject access. Of the numerous criticisms, difficulties of use and user unfamiliarity are the greatest disadvantages of using LCSH for subject access. Average users only have a vague notion of what they are looking for when initializing a search. More work is required in automated generation of subject headings and increased usage of LCSH in faceted search retrieval systems. This will provide users with better access to the LCSH used in the back end of information retrieval. Originality/value - The Greek researchers who developed the Dissertation DSPace system believe this type of module will eventually replace the traditional keyword-based indexing back ends employed by many information retrieval modules within current digital library systems. The system offers the type of access and interactivity that will acquaint users with how LCSH looks and is used. Faceted search and automated pattern matching using an ontology based on LCSH have the best promise of overcoming the disadvantages that have always plagued the LOC-controlled vocabulary. These retrieval techniques give LCSH an opportunity to finally achieve the optimal precision and recall it has so far failed to deliver.

0.005638122 = product of:
  0.022552488 = sum of:
    0.022552488 = weight(_text_:for in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022552488 = score(doc=2918,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.2540624 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports an algorithmic approach to the automatic generation of thesauri for electronic community systems. The techniques used included terms filtering, automatic indexing, and cluster analysis. The testbed for the research was the Worm Community System, which contains a comprehensive library of specialized community data and literature, currently in use by molecular biologists who study the nematode worm. The resulting worm thesaurus included 2709 researchers' names, 798 gene names, 20 experimental methods, and 4302 subject descriptors. On average, each term had about 90 weighted neighbouring terms indicating relevant concepts. The thesaurus was developed as an online search aide. Tests the worm thesaurus in an experiment with 6 worm researchers of varying degrees of expertise and background. The experiment showed that the thesaurus was an excellent 'memory jogging' device and that it supported learning and serendipitous browsing. Despite some occurrences of obvious noise, the system was useful in suggesting relevant concepts for the researchers' queries and it helped improve concept recall. With a simple browsing interface, an automatic thesaurus can become a useful tool for online search and can assist researchers in exploring and traversing a dynamic and complex electronic community system

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.3, S.175-193

0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 1595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=1595,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 1595, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1595)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A movement for a subject heading code to standardize LCSH and their usage gained considerable attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Examines the reasons for the lack of progress in this project, which include: the lack of any plan from the LoC which could serve as a philosophical foundation for either a subject access system or the changes made to it; the belief that online catalogues make a controlled subject vocabulary obsolete; and professional ignorance, apathy, and negativism. Warns that, in an increasingly complex age, lack of standardization of any technical system or process tends to lead to the demise of that system or process

0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 6930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=6930,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 6930, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6930)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Introducess a new approach to display retrieved subject headings in subject searching designed to encourage users to browse bibliographic information. Emphasizes the importance of the exact display approach by showing how many user queries could be candidates for this approach, demonstrates an implementation of the exact-display approach in an experimental online catalogue. End user experiences gives opportunities to make recommendations for enhancing the original design of the exact display approach so that future implementations of this approach in operational online catalogues are responsive to the needs of online catalogue users