Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04753036 = product of:
  0.09506072 = sum of:
    0.07602732 = weight(_text_:data in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07602732 = score(doc=3565,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.513453 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

0.028236724 = product of:
  0.05647345 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A total of 16 classifiers made a subject analysis of a set of books such that some of the books were first classified by the UDC anf then indexed with terms from the General Finnish Subject Headings while another set were processed in the opposite order. Finally books on the same subject were either classifies or indexed. The total number of books processed was 581. A comparison was made of the time required for processing in different situations and of the number of classes or subject headings used. The time figures were compared with corresponding data from the British Library (1972) and the Library of Congress (1990 and 1991). The author finds that the contents analysis requires one third, classification one third and indexing obe third of the time, if the document is both classified and indexed. There was a plausible correlation (o.51) between the length of experience in classification and the decrease in the time required for classing. The average number of UDC numbers was 4,3 and the average number of terms from the list of subject headings was 4,0

0.027920479 = product of:
  0.055840958 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.029975938 = product of:
      0.059951875 = sum of:
        0.059951875 = weight(_text_:processing in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059951875 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

0.020863095 = product of:
  0.04172619 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.015679834 = product of:
  0.06271934 = sum of:
    0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06271934 = score(doc=2289,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=1830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Automatic keyword extraction is an important and fundamental technology in an advanced information retrieval systems. Briefly compares several major keyword extraction methods, lists their advantages and disadvantages, and reports recent research progress in Taiwan. Also describes the application of a keyword extraction algorithm in an information retrieval system for relevance feedback. Preliminary analysis shows that the error rate of extracting relevant keywords is 18%, and that the precision rate is over 50%. The main disadvantage of this approach is that the extraction results depend on the retrieval results, which in turn depend on the data held by the database. Apart from collecting more data, this problem can be alleviated by the application of a thesaurus constructed by the same keyword extraction algorithm

0.01213214 = product of:
  0.02426428 = sum of:
    0.017919812 = weight(_text_:data in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017919812 = score(doc=1858,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.12102204 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.006344468 = product of:
      0.012688936 = sum of:
        0.012688936 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012688936 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.

0.010973599 = product of:
  0.043894395 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=3833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents results of an experiment in which 8 indexers (4 beginners and 4 experts) were asked to index the same 4 documents with 2 different thesauri. The 3 kind of verbal reports provide complementary data on strategic behaviour. it is of prime importance to consider the indexing task as an ill-defined problem, where the solutionm is partly defined by the indexer

0.009516701 = product of:
  0.038066804 = sum of:
    0.038066804 = product of:
      0.07613361 = sum of:
        0.07613361 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07613361 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=3609,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3609, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3609)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Indexers differ in their judgement as to which terms reflect adequately the content of a document. Studies of interindexers' consistency identified several factors associated with low consistency, but failed to provide a comprehensive model of this phenomenon. Our research applies theories and methods from cognitive psychology to the study of indexing behavior. From a theoretical standpoint, indexing is considered as a problem solving situation. To access to the cognitive processes of indexers, 3 kinds of verbal reports are used. We will present results of an experiment in which 4 experienced indexers indexed the same documents. It will be shown that the 3 kinds of verbal reports provide complementary data on strategic behavior, and that it is of prime importance to consider the indexing task as an ill-defined problem, where the solution is partly defined by the indexer him(her)self

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.

0.0074939844 = product of:
  0.029975938 = sum of:
    0.029975938 = product of:
      0.059951875 = sum of:
        0.059951875 = weight(_text_:processing in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059951875 = score(doc=554,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.

0.007418666 = product of:
  0.029674664 = sum of:
    0.029674664 = product of:
      0.05934933 = sum of:
        0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 2567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05934933 = score(doc=2567,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 2567, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.441-458

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.

0.0063588563 = product of:
  0.025435425 = sum of:
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=5262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 27(1991) no.6, S.623-628

0.006344468 = product of:
  0.025377871 = sum of:
    0.025377871 = product of:
      0.050755743 = sum of:
        0.050755743 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050755743 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.0055514094 = product of:
  0.022205638 = sum of:
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.0055514094 = product of:
  0.022205638 = sum of:
    0.022205638 = product of:
      0.044411276 = sum of:
        0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044411276 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26